The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the judgment of the first instance court rendered guilty without a defendant's statement pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Judgment (hereinafter "the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc.") where the defendant filed a petition for recovery of right to appeal for the reason that the defendant or his/her representative could not file an appeal within the period for filing an appeal for reasons not attributable to him/her, if such grounds include circumstances in which the defendant could not be present at the trial due to reasons not attributable to him/her, it is reasonable to deem that the grounds for appeal corresponding to "when grounds for filing an appeal exist" under Article 361-5 (1) 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act are asserted.

Therefore, in this case, the appellate court should examine whether there are grounds for the request for a retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Litigation Promotion Act, and there are such grounds.

If it is recognized, the judgment of the first instance court shall be reversed, and the new trial result shall be ruled again in accordance with the result of the new trial, such as serving a copy, etc. of the indictment again (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015). Pursuant to Article 23 of the Litigation Promotion Act, the lower court rendered a public notice to the Defendant on May 18, 2017; served the copy, summons, etc. of the indictment by means of serving public notice; served the Defendant with a summons, etc.; and sentenced the Defendant on June 21, 2017 on June 21, 2017; the Defendant claimed that he/she was unable to undergo a normal trial because he/she was unable to receive a summons, etc. while claiming the recovery of his/her right of appeal against the final and conclusive judgment of the lower court formally, and the District Court of Speaker was the District Court on September 13, 2017.